I know what you said. You stated a bad example of a monogamous relationship and a good example of an open one. The correlation was there whether you intended it or not.
Only because you wanted it to be it seems. That was not the correlation I made. I simply illustrated that you're narrow definition of "marriage" is not a good representation of people. Open couples can and have been successful, the swinger community is actually quite large and most of them would take great offense to the fact that you seem to think their marriages are broken. If I had given an inverted example, a broken, open couple and a healthy sexually monogamous one you'd say "Ah HA! See how right I am". The only reason you seem to have a problem with my example is because it violates your preconceived notions.
Exactly my point in using it.
Yeah, you keep saying that, but its a load of rubbish. Yes, its true that in many cultures, there were marriages made out of politics, economics, etc; but the invention of love and a monogamous union in general is not "new".
No actually it is. Hell, it's not even prevailent in areas outside the west. India still practices arranged marriage. In many areas of the Middle East women are essentially property. In Africa polygamy is actually the most common form of marriage. Your views culturally are limited to a small portion of society. Our definition of love is definitely linked to our understanding of freedom in America, and many, many countries are horrified by the way in which we allow ourselves to behave sexually (ironically, other countries think we're uptight)
Huh....I wonder where these (and over 500 other references) came from...
Let's play the Bible quote-mining game, that's fun! Care to post the verse where if you rape a girl you're bound by law to marry her, or she's to be put to death.
at first sight. The word "love" also has been around for a long time and re-appropriated for a long time. Socrates, the father of modern thought, concluded true love only existed between a man and a man. That was not a "just him" thing either, he felt it applied for all humans everywhere. I dare say I'd disagree (at least personally). The Bible is the same way. Their views on a "loving" marriage involved treating wives as if they were sub-human and incapable of making their own decisions. Also, they encouraged killing your wife if she chose "other Gods" and you weren't allowed to marry someone of a different religion or race.
And all but one person mentioned in the bible were sinners and had major character flaws. Just because it's mentioned doesn't mean it was condoned. In reference to Abraham, who I can only assume you're referring to, he was punished for sleeping with another woman other than his wife. Polygamy and adultery is expressly forbidden in the Bible.
Abraham was hardly the only character with concubines, in fact I can't think of a single book in the old testament devoid of them. David, Solomon and Noah all supposedly had extramarital affairs. For something that was not "condoned" God sure allowed a lot of it (see: Thou Shalt Not Kill as well).
Its quite obvious that is not what I was saying. But if poorly twisting my words to make it easier to think the way you do, by all means, go for it.
Marriage is a contract. Like any contract, you can only be released from it if certain stipulations are met or if one or more parties break the terms of the agreement.
You realize couples actually have "marriage contracts" and they can be drawn up with any
stipulations that couple wants. That couple could include a variety of things in there not found in the Leave it to Beaver household.
As written in state law, adultery is one of those terms.
There are very few states that outlaw adultery and almost none that enforce laws they have on the books. Most states have laws they don't enforce. You're not suppose to make left turns in my state without firing a gun into the air either -- and much like our sodomy and adultery laws it's not enforced. Yes, the next time you're having sex that's not in the bah-gina remember that your state(s) probably have written laws against it.
My point for mentioning it is proof that marriage (at least in tour western culture) is meant to be monogamous. If that weren't the case, why would adultery be included as one of the terms by which a marriage could be ended?
Why are "irreconcilible differences" included? Do you think happy, healthy couples don't ever argue or disagree. Man, you're warped. You know what else is grounds: spousal abuse. You know what is a
very popular sex act among women (I've experienced): rough sex. Rough sex can involve choking. Choking is abusive sometimes, but under the right set of circumstances with the right people it's perfectly normal sex play. Same with swingers. They don't view it as adultery because there's a whole "consent" aspect they add that's not there when Ben Cheatsalot goes behind his wife or girlfriend's back. Threeways, another possible passtime for couples, involves sex with another, and as long as the couple consents and is mature about it can be fine. The irony is I'm betting your parents influenced your highly conservative view of sex, and even not knowing your parents I'm almost positive you have no idea what they're like in the bedroom. Moreover the swingers typically are very particular about who is allowed within their lifestyle and who isn't. It's not an affair, it like your view of marriage is a contract in which all parties agree to the stipulations set forward by the group.
All that being said, everyone will do what they want. But that doesn't mean the purpose and intent is changed. I can look at a stop sign and decide to drive on by it. But the purpose and meaning of the stop sign hasn't changed; I chose to ignore it.
But the
purpose and intent of marriage has been changed. I really doubt, were you to marry off a daughter you'd want land in exchange for her, and would not want her to be treated like a slave (that's occasionally used for sex). Your stop sign example is dumb because well, it's a really dumb example, no one re-interprets a stop sign. Furthermore, no one has ever been issued a citation from an arresting officer for attending a swinger's party. Those are totally legal. I'm not even going to bring up gay marriage because I'm damn sure you're against that too. Certainly in your mind two consenting adults can't make decisions about their own sex life.
. Just speaking personally my father, and several of my friends would meet the definition of a "best friend".
